The Mixed Messages of Common Sense

 The Mixed Messages of Common Sense 

By Jeffrey M. Bowen 

The features of common sense have always intrigued me because they seem so easy to identify but slippery to define.  Consider works of art in a museum.  A famous  painting may appeal because you would love it over your fireplace.  Another display shocks you because it consists of broken glass shards hung around a bare light bulb. The painting appeals to your common sense because you know what you like when you see it, hear it, or use it.  As for the glass shards, the big aesthetic idea may be to violate your expectations.  The truth is, nonsense to you may make great sense to someone else.    

Common sense appeals to me because I like to think I own more than a little of it.  Usually, it is a simple and reliable guide.  But I also realize that new discoveries and strange revelations often occur because they contradict our common sense.  Current media on the internet spews disinformation and propaganda to disrupt our commonsensible opinions.  

My interest in common sense is its potential connection to artificial intelligence (AI).  Will we ever be able to adapt common-sense models to the internet?  We are headed that way, but the big challenge may be empowering the predictions of the artificial mind to instantly shift technical gears based on intuitions and emotions.  Imagine the absurdity of an auto dealer who tells you that the latest model in their showroom has a special button called common sense.  It would activate your controls when you attach a sensor to your ear and press the button.  Don’t dismiss the idea too quickly because self-driving cars are already a reality.  

American history provides a compelling inspiration for my curiosity about common sense.  In April 1776, an essayist named Thomas Paine published a phenomenal 47-page booklet titled “Common Sense”.  The popularity of the essay, relative to the small size of the colonial population, make Paine’s reasons why the colonies should declare their independence from Britain one of the most influential written statements in our history. 

Just a few months after its publication, the Continental Congress adopted our Declaration of Independence, with its opening sentence, “We declare these truths to be self-evident...” Common sense, right? Ironically, in the same sentence we endorse the idea that all men are created equal.   Centuries later we still struggle with the implications.   

 The echoes of our forefathers can be heard in deep suspicions of authoritarian elites and undemocratic dictatorships.  Our citizens prefer authentic experience and verifiable proof.  What is more, constitutional democracy provides a guaranteed framework of legal protections that assure our right to vote and stabilize our ship of state.   

The bedrock is common sense: that is, our ability to make sound, reasonable judgments and decisions based on simple and practical knowledge.     

Evidence can be found at the checkout counter of many bookstores, where you will find books full of advice like “Life’s Little Instruction Book’” or “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff.”   Most of the self-help advice is common sense.  It is revealing for what it says about our culture and traditions.  Some is basic; for example, don’t walk into traffic or touch live wires.  Other statements recognize being polite, like saying please, thank you, and even putting the cap back on your toothpaste before someone else in your household uses it.   

Homey examples like this do not mean that common sense has been overlooked in the academic world.  One familiar theory is called the cognitive continuum. At one end are reflective and intuitive judgments.  At the other end is rationality. In between are combinations, for instance using a rationale to justify intuition.  

Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, has become famous for explaining these two co-existing systems of thinking.  The first (system 1) works fast and intuitively, without thinking.  It emphasizes first impressions and can either save us in an emergency or reveal sudden opportunities. When you apply a rule of thumb and screen out extraneous information, you are exercising your intuition.   

On the other hand, a rational thinker (system 2) weighs the odds more carefully and is less willing to take risks before reasoning through all of the alternatives.  If time is available, and an issue is not truly complex, this kind of thinking prevents too many disastrous mistakes.  Yet it can become expensive, and more background knowledge may be needed.  

 Interestingly, “deliberation without attention” has strong merits when the number of choices is restricted, and a pattern of previous decisions can be applied.  Too much conscious thought may not produce the best result.  

The value of intuition, when mated with common sense, depends on the situation.  Complications arise when personalities, including emotions and biases come into play.  On balance, gut feelings, are often as effective as lengthy analysis.  But it is sensible to pay heed to the mixed messages of common sense.  You may encounter either a garden of truth or a mine field of lies. The key is not to follow intuition blindly, and never to underestimate it.